View Full Version : Predictions
The polls, and more importantly the bookmakers, seem to be indicating a very favorable election cycle for the Democrats. So some friends and I came up with some predictions.
Donald Trump will refuse to leave the White House, citing the CDC ban on evictions.
Shocked at the magnitude of his victory, Biden will suffer a severe cardiac event. Neil Kinnock’s life will flash before his eyes. He will recover and deliver Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, in an “honest mistake”.
Senate Democrats will demand Justice Barrett recuse herself from all cases involving vertebrates. Failing that, they will propose legislation increasing the size of the Court to an “Infinity Plus One” standard.
Vice President Harris will commence Amendment 25 proceedings, citing the first presidential debate.
President Harris will sign Medicare for All into law, with an exception clause barring Democratic Committee Chairs displaying unseemly degrees of civility toward their opposition.
The Senate will bring back the filibuster, including a “double secret probation provision”.
iris lilies
10-19-20, 12:02pm
Biden by 4 points is my prediction.
catherine
10-19-20, 12:34pm
Biden by 4 points is my prediction.
4 points is not going to do it. Donald will whip up some kind of a coup and his base will start an "Occupy The White House" movement.
4 points is not going to do it. Donald will whip up some kind of a coup and his base will start an "Occupy The White House" movement.
Then they will have a very bad time.
Then they will have a very bad time.
Yeah. They’d be rousted out pretty quickly. This isn’t Seattle, after all.
frugal-one
10-19-20, 3:17pm
All I wish is for donald to be gone.... drama to cease... and life to have some semblance of order. They can drag him out feet first for all I care.
You can have the first but probably not the second wish.
All I wish is for donald to be gone.... drama to cease... and life to have some semblance of order. They can drag him out feet first for all I care.
I will literally dance in my driveway.
If I were a betting person I might go 3 to 1 odds Biden over Trump and even odds for the Senate to go either way. I have a suspicion that Trump is mentally unable to accept being a looser if he goes down, and will concoct some sort of conspiracy or rabbit out of the hat legal issue that might end up in courts. Maybe some sort of significant civil unrest either way.
If I were a betting person I might go 3 to 1 odds Biden over Trump and even odds for the Senate to go either way. I have a suspicion that Trump is mentally unable to accept being a looser if he goes down, and will concoct some sort of conspiracy or rabbit out of the hat legal issue that might end up in courts. Maybe some sort of significant civil unrest either way.
He's been laying the groundwork for that for the last several months - all the stories about voter fraud, etc. He'll be able to say, "see, I told you so."
All I wish is for donald to be gone.... drama to cease... and life to have some semblance of order. They can drag him out feet first for all I care.
I don't know that drama will ever cease, it's become too ingrained in our national zeitgeist. I think the best we can do is re-focus that drama in a direction that's less hateful to those we disagree with.
Yeah. They’d be rousted out pretty quickly. This isn’t Seattle, after all.
The CHAZ in Seattle was 6 city blocks (at 1.45 acres/block) and a small city park (7.37 acres). About 16 acres. The White House grounds is about 18 acres.
The CHAZ in Seattle was 6 city blocks (at 1.45 acres/block) and a small city park (7.37 acres). About 16 acres. The White House grounds is about 18 acres.
I would think that a Trumpista version of the CHAZ wouldn’t be met with the same craven insistence that we must not “escalate”.
My prediction is that now that trump has fixed the dishwasher problem the June cleaver demographic is going to flock to him.
catherine
10-20-20, 4:12pm
There is an article in the NYT today: "Trump is Giving Up." (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/opinion/trump-campaign-.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)
First of all, I can't believe that. He is hard wired to win at any cost.
But, I wonder if he is redefining his idea of a "win"? Maybe his idea of a win is to get out of Washington and return to his world of glitz and glamour in NY and Florida and flee the battering ram of Congress and the media. I still believe he never expected, nor wanted, to win in 2016, and Melania certainly didn't want him to win.
So, I think Rob alluded to this in another thread, but maybe he is really trying to be as outrageous as possible so he doesn't get voted in? I think it's an interesting hypothesis. He still gets to keep his base (now the minority), and he might pay lip service to a "rigged election" but I believe that by that time he'll be planning his next business deal from Trump Tower and reassembling his coalition of family and friendly sycophants.
There is an article in the NYT today: "Trump is Giving Up." (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/opinion/trump-campaign-.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)
First of all, I can't believe that. He is hard wired to win at any cost.
But, I wonder if he is redefining his idea of a "win"? Maybe his idea of a win is to get out of Washington and return to his world of glitz and glamour in NY and Florida and flee the battering ram of Congress and the media. I still believe he never expected, nor wanted, to win in 2016, and Melania certainly didn't want him to win.
His behavior recently does seem increasingly bizarre and you could be right. I've attributed it to his mental capacities becoming further unhinged. It seems to have gotten worse after his bout with Covid.
I still believe he never expected, nor wanted, to win in 2016, and Melania certainly didn't want him to win.
I've always believed that he ran in 2016 to strengthen his brand exposure and was as surprised as the rest of us to actually win.
catherine
10-20-20, 5:11pm
I've always believed that he ran in 2016 to strengthen his brand exposure and was as surprised as the rest of us to actually win.
Exactly.
frugal-one
10-20-20, 6:09pm
Don't think he would be campaigning as hard if he didn't want to win.
catherine
10-20-20, 6:23pm
Don't think he would be campaigning as hard if he didn't want to win.
Well, there's something called self-sabotage: "Sabotage is the act of destroying or undermining something, often in a covert manner." So maybe he's doing what he's "supposed" to do, but he really doesn't want to do it, so he acts in self-defeating ways. His subconscious is driving him to lose, maybe?
Another possible theory in this article titled, "Trump's Wild Lies Down Election Home Stretch Are Not Crazy." The author claims it's right out of the Kremlin playbook.
"If you aren’t among the minority of Americans subscribing to the Trump cult (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/18/trump-cult-lives-an-alternate-meaner-universe/), then he wants you to give up. When people are constantly pummeled with confusion, conflict, and outrage, some will stop paying attention and check out.
Trump knows that flooding the internet and airwaves with misinformation and outrage-bait helps to distract from the authentically hideous stories: His catastrophic dereliction of duty (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/trump-coronavirus-covid-denial-timeline/) in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. His attempts to poison the voting process (https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/politics/election-threat-trump-mail-in-voting-claims-invs/index.html) at the heart of American democracy. The revelations that he cheated the system and paid essentially nothing in federal income taxes (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html). His long-running (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hate-groups-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-racism/), increasingly dangerous courtship (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/08/white-supremacist-violence-trump-mass-shootings/) with violent far-right hate groups (https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-joe-biden-donald-trump-3f4d31aed98ca5080fb428d7cdc0c223). And don’t look now, but his poll numbers are pretty grim (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-polls-in-key-battlegrounds-raise-concerns-for-trump) too."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/trump-lies-disinformation-playbook/
Teacher Terry
10-20-20, 7:37pm
Had he never run his crimes would have gone undetected. Then he became president and committed more. Once he isn’t president he’s going to be to busy meeting with lawyers to plan his defense. He may skate on federal charges if he has friends in high places but won’t in states such as New York. Let the good times roll:))
Had he never run his crimes would have gone undetected. Then he became president and committed more. Once he isn’t president he’s going to be to busy meeting with lawyers to plan his defense. He may skate on federal charges if he has friends in high places but won’t in states such as New York. Let the good times roll:))
What crimes might he be guilty of?
What crimes might he be guilty of?
He stiffed contractors and subcontractors working on his properties all the time. He stole from his fake charity. He had it spend money on noncharitable items like a portrait of himself. He sexually assaulted women and bragged about it.
JaneV2.0
10-21-20, 10:43am
Add money laundering and tax evasion, among others.
If, as it seems likely, the Pink Pillock replaces the Orange Wassock, I think people won’t take long to quit obsessing over things that go Trump in the night. I think that if the Democrats achieve a transient dominance we will see an inter-party struggle between the traditional party establishment and the quasi socialists. Between the spenders of other people’s money and those who believe there’s no such thing as other people’s money. I expect to hear a lot of fatuous talk about. “the soul of the party”.
It will be great fun, but extremely expensive.
Teacher Terry
10-21-20, 11:59am
More expensive than giving money to rich people Republican style? Look at what happened to the deficit under them.
catherine
10-21-20, 12:01pm
More expensive than giving money to rich people Republican style? Look at what happened to the deficit under them.
Yeah, the Republicans have a name for that: "Starve the beast"
If, as it seems likely, the Pink Pillock replaces the Orange Wassock, I think people won’t take long to quit obsessing over things that go Trump in the night. I think that if the Democrats achieve a transient dominance we will see an inter-party struggle between the traditional party establishment and the quasi socialists. Between the spenders of other people’s money and those who believe there’s no such thing as other people’s money. I expect to hear a lot of fatuous talk about. “the soul of the party”.
It will be great fun, but extremely expensive.
The real fun is going to be watching the republican party try to figure out what to do post-trump. Do they stick with the racism that got them the white house and both branches of congress just 4 years ago or do they try to move beyond the identity politics that led to their takeover by trump? Or do they just focus on "hate the libs" and pretend that it's not really racism that they've been selling?
More expensive than giving money to rich people Republican style? Look at what happened to the deficit under them.
Far more expensive if the planetary saviors, health givers, reparations enthusiasts and universal redistributors get their way. You can’t Immanentize the eschaton on the cheap.
The real fun is going to be watching the republican party try to figure out what to do post-trump. Do they stick with the racism that got them the white house and both branches of congress just 4 years ago or do they try to move beyond the identity politics that led to their takeover by trump? Or do they just focus on "hate the libs" and pretend that it's not really racism that they've been selling?
Being less obsessed with race than the current zeitgeist considers decent, I would like to see a return to a more traditional conservative party. Mostly ungelded capitalism. Limited and local government power to the greatest extent possible. Justice conceived of as between individuals rather than on a herd basis. Prioritization of individual liberty over the current fashion of the public good, and equality of opportunity over handicapping outcomes. Having each generation meet its own expenses.
You’d hate it.
catherine
10-21-20, 12:46pm
Being less obsessed with race than the current zeitgeist considers decent, I would like to see a return to a more traditional conservative party. Mostly ungelded capitalism. Limited and local government power to the greatest extent possible. Justice conceived of as between individuals rather than on a herd basis. Prioritization of individual liberty over the current fashion of the public good, and equality of opportunity over handicapping outcomes. Having each generation meet its own expenses.
You’d hate it.
Is ungelded capitalism the same as unfettered capitalism?
Is ungelded capitalism the same as unfettered capitalism?
It’s friskier.
catherine
10-21-20, 1:19pm
It’s friskier.
I have no idea what that means, but if it means even fewer regulations, yes, I would hate that.
As an aside, When I read The Fountainhead, I actually remember my visceral reaction to the opening paragraphs when Howard Roark was standing looking down the Hudson at the great cliffs of stone (can't remember if they were marble or granite), and his first thought was "Yes! All mine to exploit!" (something like that--at least that's how I took it). He turned me off in the first few pages.
I loved Ayn Rand's notion of being true to yourself and not compromising on value or quality of life. I hated her bland, soulless cartoon caricatures of people in helping professions. Who would want to live in a world where everyone was always just out for themselves?? Not me. I want my society to reflect the reality of the "Middle Way." Nothing "friskily unfettered" is good, and I want a world where exploitation of human and non-human capital is kept to a minimum.
I have no idea what that means, but if it means even fewer regulations, yes, I would hate that.
As an aside, When I read The Fountainhead, I actually remember my visceral reaction to the opening paragraphs when Howard Roark was standing looking down the Hudson at the great cliffs of stone (can't remember if they were marble or granite), and his first thought was "Yes! All mine to exploit!" (something like that--at least that's how I took it). He turned me off in the first few pages.
I loved Ayn Rand's notion of being true to yourself and not compromising on value or quality of life. I hated her bland, soulless cartoon caricatures of people in helping professions. Who would want to live in a world where everyone was always just out for themselves?? Not me. I want my society to reflect the reality of the "Middle Way." Nothing "friskily unfettered" is good, and I want a world where exploitation of human and non-human capital is kept to a minimum.
I’ve come to believe that “unfettered capitalism” has become too much of a cliche to be used in polite company.
I think our current situation more resembles Tom Wolfe than Ayn Rand. I would like to see a reduction in the general level of frantic foolishness and comic censoriousness.
I want to live in a world where self-righteous hall monitors aren’t empowered to make me share my toys and eat my vegetables.
early morning
10-21-20, 2:12pm
I think capitalism has done enough raping and pillaging, at least of the environment, so I'm all for having it gelded.
We tamped down the Robber Barons once, it seems it's long past time to do it again. Let the gelding begin.
I think capitalism has done enough raping and pillaging, at least of the environment, so I'm all for having it gelded.
I think there’s a good chance you’ll see your wish granted in the next couple of years. Good and hard.
This Ayn Rand/libertarian model doesn’t work for the poor, female, disabled, or minority members of our society. You have to either be a strongman or hire one to survive in that world.
catherine
10-21-20, 3:19pm
I want to live in a world where self-righteous hall monitors aren’t empowered to make me share my toys and eat my vegetables.
Like the self-righteous who tell women what to do with their bodies, or the ones who say that certain people who love each other shouldn't be allowed to get married, or the ones that declare that their religion is "more American" than others?
Sharing our toys is what makes the difference between a society that functions for all its members and an oligarchy.
frugal-one
10-21-20, 3:58pm
I don't know that drama will ever cease, it's become too ingrained in our national zeitgeist. I think the best we can do is re-focus that drama in a direction that's less hateful to those we disagree with.
There was NEVER such drama as with the current administration! I only hope that once he is gone, life will get back to a semblance of normal.
frugal-one
10-21-20, 4:06pm
I think there’s a good chance you’ll see your wish granted in the next couple of years. Good and hard.
Good. Then there may then still be a world to live in.
frugal-one
10-21-20, 4:09pm
Like the self-righteous who tell women what to do with their bodies, or the ones who say that certain people who love each other shouldn't be allowed to get married, or the ones that declare that their religion is "more American" than others?
Or think it is ok to destroy our drinking water, kill our honey bees.... there may no longer be vegetables to reap if this keeps up.
early morning
10-21-20, 4:26pm
there may no longer be vegetables to reap if this keeps up
Not to worry, there's always Soylent Green. . .
I think capitalism has done enough raping and pillaging, at least of the environment, so I'm all for having it gelded.
When ever I think of a Libertarian government I think of Rachel Carson's America before Nixon's EPA. I then stop at any notion of self-regulation and personal responsibility with in our capitalistic society.
When ever I think of a Libertarian government I think of Rachel Carson's America before Nixon's EPA. I then stop at any notion of self-regulation and personal responsibility with in our capitalistic society.
I think a brief observation of how Americans behave when faced with simple self-regulating behaviours that would greatly reduce the impact of a pandemic would put the kabosh on Libertarianism.
I think a brief observation of how Americans behave when faced with simple self-regulating behaviours that would greatly reduce the impact of a pandemic would put the kabosh on Libertarianism.
Isn't that the truth? If I ever had any faith in the general public's capacity for thoughtful action or even common sense, it's been dashed by recent events.
I lean libertarian on quite a few issues, but mask wearing isn't one of them.
frugal-one
10-21-20, 5:54pm
When ever I think of a Libertarian government I think of Rachel Carson's America before Nixon's EPA. I then stop at any notion of self-regulation and personal responsibility with in our capitalistic society.
The agency I worked for tried doing letting businesses do self regulation. It was a bust and did not work. I went in to verify and NOPE.... not a chance. Kind of like now when businesses got all kinds of tax breaks. It does not trickle down.... greed.
There was NEVER such drama as with the current administration! I only hope that once he is gone, life will get back to a semblance of normal.
The Lincoln/Douglas election of 1860 produced quite a bit more drama.
I think there’s a good chance you’ll see your wish granted in the next couple of years. Good and hard.
You’re always so optimistic. I wish I had such a sunny disposition.
iris lilies
10-22-20, 7:25am
I think a brief observation of how Americans behave when faced with simple self-regulating behaviours that would greatly reduce the impact of a pandemic would put the kabosh on Libertarianism.
The observations I make daily in my urban core prove outside regulations are ignored. I am not saying a majority Of the population ignores masking and gathering laws. But I am saying significant numbers of citizens do, that is obvious to anyone who is paying attention.
So even with Laws the populace doesn’t behave.
You’re always so optimistic. I wish I had such a sunny disposition.
It comes from a clean conscience, gratitude and gross insensitivity.
Sharing our toys is what makes the difference between a society that functions for all its members and an oligarchy.
But is it really sharing if someone forces you to do it?
frugal-one
10-22-20, 1:14pm
The Lincoln/Douglas election of 1860 produced quite a bit more drama.
Seriously? Shows that trump needs to be gone. We have to go way back to 1860 to show worse.
frugal-one
10-22-20, 1:19pm
I think there’s a good chance you’ll see your wish granted in the next couple of years. Good and hard.
Thanks to the trump administration. All the deregulations of the environment and Paris Climate agreement abandonment. Even laws protecting our drinking water have been eliminated. So, yeah, you can thank the current administration for the destruction that is currently going on. Instead of trying to fix what is happening, the trump deregulation is causing more calamities to occur.
Thanks to the trump administration. All the deregulations of the environment and Paris Climate agreement abandonment. How are we doing with the goals of the Paris agreement as opposed to the remaining signatories?
Instead of trying to fix what is happening, the trump deregulation is causing more calamities to occur. Like what?
iris lilies
10-22-20, 1:33pm
Seriously? Shows that trump needs to be gone. We have to go way back to 1860 to show worse.
It was pretty contentious, tho.
I remember standing in front of the Lincoln Museum’s display of those days of Douglas-Lincoln debates, and yes, the words flung around were pretty bad!
It was pretty contentious, tho.
I remember standing in front of the Lincoln Museum’s display of those days of Douglas-Lincoln debates, and yes, the words flung around were pretty bad!And the resultant war just a few months after the election may be the ultimate example of political drama.
Seriously? Shows that trump needs to be gone. We have to go way back to 1860 to show worse.
I remember 1968 as pretty dramatic in terms of both the rhetoric and the violence. I would say probably more so than today’s more theatrical hysterics. They had more Molotov cocktails and fewer costumes than today.
frugal-one
10-22-20, 3:14pm
How are we doing with the goals of the Paris agreement as opposed to the remaining signatories?
Like what?[/COLOR]
We are not in the Paris agreement.... look at previous posts on how many environmental regulations have been cut. You don't think this is a problem for our water, wildlife, bees, etc?
frugal-one
10-22-20, 3:17pm
I remember 1968 as pretty dramatic in terms of both the rhetoric and the violence. I would say probably more so than today’s more theatrical hysterics. They had more Molotov cocktails and fewer costumes than today.
It bad then but today I believe it to be more contentious. It is obvious we have a Hitler wanna be in the white house who sides with extremist groups++++. Look at the last debate and how ridiculous trump behaved... take about theatrical hysterics!
iris lilies
10-22-20, 3:19pm
It bad then but today I believe it to be more contentious. It is obvious we have a Hitler wanna be in the white house who sides with extremist groups++++. Look at the last debate and how ridiculous trump behaved... take about theatrical hysterics!
I think he is more of a PT Barnum wannabe.
frugal-one
10-22-20, 3:30pm
It was pretty contentious, tho.
I remember standing in front of the Lincoln Museum’s display of those days of Douglas-Lincoln debates, and yes, the words flung around were pretty bad!
Truthfully, I did not read or care to look up the Douglas-Lincoln debates from over 150 years ago. It is not relevant to now IMO. The debates we have had recently with trump name-calling EVERYONE and having derogatory nicknames for them speaks volumes on his unsavory character. I have never seen such displays of vulgarities or unprofessional behavior by a leader in my lifetime! His constant belittling and crudeness is beyond compare. I look forward to having a professional who listens to our scientists and behaves in a manner befitting the office instead of a buffoon alienating everyone in his path.
frugal-one
10-22-20, 3:31pm
I think he is more of a PT Barnum wannabe.
PT Barnum was not dangerous. trump is.
We are not in the Paris agreement....No we're not, but the two major parts of the Paris agreement involved meeting certain environmental goals and paying other developing nations to cut down on greenhouse emissions. By withdrawing from the agreement we're not paying India and Pakistan et.al., but I believe we're still pretty much on course to meet the goals the agreement required. So, I think it makes a pretty good talking point for people who just like repeating things but I wonder what effect on the environment it has actually caused other than denying other countries our money?
Do you have an opinion on that?
We're quickly getting known for being contentious and unreliable, which isn't the best reputation to have on the world stage.
Truthfully, I did not read or care to look up the Douglas-Lincoln debates from over 150 years ago. It is not relevant to now IMO.
That would explain all those empty pedestals.
frugal-one
10-22-20, 6:27pm
That would explain all those empty pedestals.
Not relevant to now.
frugal-one
10-22-20, 6:27pm
No we're not, but the two major parts of the Paris agreement involved meeting certain environmental goals and paying other developing nations to cut down on greenhouse emissions. By withdrawing from the agreement we're not paying India and Pakistan et.al., but I believe we're still pretty much on course to meet the goals the agreement required. So, I think it makes a pretty good talking point for people who just like repeating things but I wonder what effect on the environment it has actually caused other than denying other countries our money?
Do you have an opinion on that?
How do you figure?
How do you figure?
How do you dispute?
Not relevant to now.
I think an educated person should try to see how the past can inform the present.
I think an educated person should try to see how the past can inform the present.
I think reverberations from the event I mentioned are still quite relevant today, and appear on the news constantly.
frugal-one
10-22-20, 7:19pm
How do you dispute?
You first.
frugal-one
10-22-20, 7:20pm
I think an educated person should try to see how the past can inform the present.
In some cases, yes. Not all. An educated person would understand that.
In some cases, yes. Not all. An educated person would understand that.
I think it within the realm of possibility that a person familiar with the period could in fact draw many parallels between today and the mid nineteenth century. The stark regional differences. The hardening of positions on ideological lines. The incivility (and even violence) in the halls of Congress. Violent mobs. Groups formed to intimidate political opponents. A press more interested in persuading than informing the public.
I think you are too quick to declare the era irrelevant.
How do you figure?
How do you dispute?
You first.
Gosh, getting an answer from you is difficult, but I'll play.
As a nation of states comprising a Federal Republic, virtually all US States and many localities have taken it upon themselves to fulfill the 2016 Paris agreement pledge of reducing greenhouse emissions by 26% to 28% of 2005 levels by 2025. In the 4 years since the agreement the US has achieved nearly 40% of that goal without the force of a central government mandate and there is reason to believe nearly 100% compliance by the 2025 deadline. Most other signatories to the agreement aren't doing as well.
Your turn.
Curse you Alan with your facts!
I think he is more of a PT Barnum wannabe.
No. He’s a hitler wannabe that is actually more pt Barnum In reality. Although we’ll have to wait until this reality show is over for a final verdict. He isnt done yet.
ApatheticNoMore
10-23-20, 2:52am
I believe the argument is that with the U.S. in the agreement there would be more pressure for other states to comply and so therefore performance of other states without the U.S. in the agreement is not a proxy for performance if it was.
This assumes the U.S. as a good faith actor of course, it isn't always.
Gosh, getting an answer from you is difficult, but I'll play.
As a nation of states comprising a Federal Republic, virtually all US States and many localities have taken it upon themselves to fulfill the 2016 Paris agreement pledge of reducing greenhouse emissions by 26% to 28% of 2005 levels by 2025. In the 4 years since the agreement the US has achieved nearly 40% of that goal without the force of a central government mandate and there is reason to believe nearly 100% compliance by the 2025 deadline. Most other signatories to the agreement aren't doing as well.
Your turn.
Is there any source of data comparing the progress each country has made in reducing greenhouse gases?
And in a similar vein, is there a source of data comparing each NATO member’s compliance with its commitment to spend 2% of GDP on its defense?
I would be interested in getting some idea of the words/deeds ratio for each.
Is there any source of data comparing the progress each country has made in reducing greenhouse gases?
And in a similar vein, is there a source of data comparing each NATO member’s compliance with its commitment to spend 2% of GDP on its defense?
I would be interested in getting some idea of the words/deeds ratio for each.
I haven't seen any data for other countries other than a reference on the Voice Of America website indicating that approximately half of the other countries are having trouble meeting their goals on greenhouse gas reduction. I can't recall seeing anything on defense spending by other countries although I have a vague recollection of hearing practically no one is meeting that goal.
frugal-one
10-23-20, 2:33pm
Gosh, getting an answer from you is difficult, but I'll play.
As a nation of states comprising a Federal Republic, virtually all US States and many localities have taken it upon themselves to fulfill the 2016 Paris agreement pledge of reducing greenhouse emissions by 26% to 28% of 2005 levels by 2025. In the 4 years since the agreement the US has achieved nearly 40% of that goal without the force of a central government mandate and there is reason to believe nearly 100% compliance by the 2025 deadline. Most other signatories to the agreement aren't doing as well.
Your turn.
Many states thought the Paris Agreement was a good idea so....
Following Trump's announcement, the governors of several U.S. states formed the United States Climate Alliance to continue to advance the objectives of the Paris Agreement at the state level despite the federal withdrawal. As of July 1, 2019, 24 states and Puerto Rico have joined the alliance,[10] and similar commitments have also been expressed by other state governors, mayors, and businesses.[5]
Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement will impact other countries by reducing its financial aid to the Green Climate fund.[11] The termination of the $3 billion U.S funding will ultimately impact climate change research and decrease society's chance of reaching the Paris Agreement goals, as well as omit U.S contributions to the future IPCC reports.[12][13] Trumps decision will also affect the carbon emission space as well as the carbon price.[14] The U.S's withdrawal will also mean that the spot to take over the global climate regime will be obtainable for China and the EU
I really have no desire to spend lots of time looking more up on this. If you would like to.... go ahead.
Many states thought the Paris Agreement was a good idea so....
Following Trump's announcement, the governors of several U.S. states formed the United States Climate Alliance to continue to advance the objectives of the Paris Agreement at the state level despite the federal withdrawal. As of July 1, 2019, 24 states and Puerto Rico have joined the alliance,[10] and similar commitments have also been expressed by other state governors, mayors, and businesses.[5]
Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement will impact other countries by reducing its financial aid to the Green Climate fund.[11] The termination of the $3 billion U.S funding will ultimately impact climate change research and decrease society's chance of reaching the Paris Agreement goals, as well as omit U.S contributions to the future IPCC reports.[12][13] Trumps decision will also affect the carbon emission space as well as the carbon price.[14] The U.S's withdrawal will also mean that the spot to take over the global climate regime will be obtainable for China and the EU
I really have no desire to spend lots of time looking more up on this. If you would like to.... go ahead.
No thanks, with only a little effort you validated my initial response, although I'm still curious about the "How do you figure" reply.
ApatheticNoMore
10-23-20, 4:32pm
Those same states were probably in constant lawsuits with the Trump admin to keep their environmental regulation, CA has been. Noone faults such states for when they aim for better environmental policy that Trump, glad they keep at it in court, just would be nice not to have to all the time.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.